"The ethanol production process consumes more fossil fuel energy
than ethanol's actual calorific value," says University of
California civil and environmental engineering professor Tad
Patzek, who spent two years studying the environmental impacts
of ethanol.

"The energy cost of restoring the environmental damage caused by
corn-based ethanol production takes seven times more energy than
the amount of energy obtained from the ethanol itself," Patzek
told BushGreenwatch.

Increasing production from 5 billion to as much as 8 billion
gallons of corn-based ethanol per year, as the Bush energy bill
calls for, "will further deplete fossil fuels, and damage soil,
water, and air with no benefit to the country, other than the
few recipients of big government subsidies" said Patzek.

Frank O'Donnell, President of Clean Air Watch, supports Patzek's
conclusion: "Increasing ethanol production has been oversold as
a pro-environmental policy," O'Donnell told BushGreenwatch,
pointing out that "ethanol, particularly when used in the
summer, can create high levels of smog and fine particle soot."

A California Air Resources Board report states that the federal
government's move to increase the amount of ethanol in gasoline
will add 70 tons of smog per day to the air in summer -- the
equivalent of adding two million cars to the road. [1]

Given the environmental risks associated with ethanol production
and its lack of impact in creating an energy independent
America, O'Donnell asserts that, "the driving force behind the
Administration's desire to boost corn-based ethanol is to help
the farm industry."

The U.S. Department of Agriculture allocated $37 billion
--repeat, $37 billion -- in corn subsidies from 1995 through
2003. [2]

O'Donnell adds that alternative ethanol types, derived from
different forms of biomass including agricultural waste, are
worth looking into. But in its effort to prop up corn prices,
the Bush Administration prefers to invest the lion's share of
research and development funding for renewable energy toward
corn-based ethanol. In his speech, President Bush proposed $84
million for ongoing research on biofuel and ethanol.

Patzek warns against this allocation, saying that an increase in
corn-based ethanol use will actually "make us more dependent on
foreign oil and natural gas, and cause us to divert our
attention from the more important improvements in energy
efficiency for our economy."

In contrast, Brazil, a country hit hard by the sudden surge in
oil prices in 1979, has been very successful in reducing its
dependence on foreign oil. By increasing production of
sugar-based ethanol and flex-fuel cars designed to use a
combination of ethanol and gasoline, Brazil's oil imports have
dropped from 85 percent of its energy consumption in 1978 to 10
percent in 2002. [3]

Many have suggested that the U.S. follow Brazil's model.
Brazilian government officials have recommended that the U.S.
increase imports of Brazilian sugar-based ethanol, and export
its corn for human consumption. [4]

Professor Patzek notes, however, that while "producing
sugar-based ethanol is significantly more efficient than
corn-based ethanol, we still have to live with the gradual
depletion of soil and large-scale water contamination."

Patzek recommends more efficient measures to reduce energy
consumption, for example "doubling the mileage of the U.S. car
fleet with existing technologies (hybrid cars, clean diesel
cars). This would cut gasoline consumption by 50 percent and
crude oil consumption by 20 percent."

###

SOURCES:
[1] "Dirty Prices," LA Weekly, Apr. 15, 2005.
[2] "Bush's pick to head the USDA is a big ethanol booster,"
Grist Magazine, Dec. 9, 2004.
[3] "Brazil's alternative-fuel strategy is a model for U.S.,"
The Sun Herald, Apr. 3, 2005.
[4]Ibid.